Transcript Implementing TBLT in Primary School ELT in Mainland China

Implementing Task-based Approach in
Primary School ELT in Mainland China
PhD candidate: Ellen Yuefeng Zhang
Supervisors:
Dr. David Bunton & Dr. Bob Adamson
Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong
Background
The failure of CLT innovation
(Anderson, 1993; Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Chen, 1988; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Hu, 2002; Hui, 1997; Li, 1984;
Liao, 2000; Ng & Tang, 1997; Rao, 1996; Tang & Absalom, 1998; Yu, 1984; Zheng & Adamson, 2003;
Zheng, 2005; Zhu, 1992)
 Adopting TBA in the ELCS in 2001
 Limited study of TBA in EFL contexts
1. Some studies on TBA implementation in Hong Kong
(Carless 2001; Lee 2002; Davison & Adamson 2003; Tong et. al. 2000; Tong 2005)
2. Few studies on TBA practices in mainland China (Zhang 2002)
Research Focus
Intended
curriculum
Policymaking
Curriculum
framework
Classroom Implementation
Syllabus & material
designing
Syllabus &
Materials training
Teachers’ lesson
planning
Students’
learning
Teaching
acts
Learning
acts
(Johnson 1989; Marsh & Wills 2003; Tong et. al. (2000)
Defining tasks
A task is an activity with
 a communicative purpose
 a non-linguistic product;
 a cognitive process;
 authentic use of language; and
 a primary focus on meaning.
(Breen 1987; Bygate 2001;Ellis 2003; Long 1985; Nunan 1989; Richards et. al. 1992; Skehan 1998; Willis 1996)
Research Questions
 How do mainland primary school English teachers
enact TBA in their classroom teaching?
 What are the main factors affecting the implementation
of TBA in the ELT in mainland primary schools?
Forms of TBA
Non-use of tasks
Form-focused
Teacher-centred
Uncontextualized
Weak for TBA
Intended
curriculu
m
Medium form TBA
Use of tasks
Meaning-focused
Student-centred
Contextualized
Strong form TBA
(Skehan 1998; Tong et. al. 2000; Tong 2005)
The implementation of TBA
Objectives
Contents
Materials
Weak-form TBA
Activities
Strong-form TBA
Assessment
Grammar teaching
Medium of instruction
Teacher & student roles
Adapted from Skehan (1996, 1998)
Conceptual Framework
Attributes of innovation
Teacher’s and students’ factors
Teacher’s implementation
Micro-context
Macro-context
(Ellis, 2003; Fullan, 1982; Morris, 1996; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971)
Mixed Method Research Design
 Quantitative approach
questionnaire (124 teachers)
 Qualitative approach
observation (3 teachers)
interviews
document analysis
Details of case studies
Fanny
Gavin
Helen
Age
23
29
34
School
District -level
City -level
Province -level
School location
District A
District B
District A
Work experience
1.5 years
7 years
15 years
No. of classes
3
4
1
Class size
49
49
38
No. of lessons/
week
12
16
7
No. of lessons
observed
10
10
10
No. of interviews
3
4
3
Duration of study
March 2004
May 2004
April 2004
Features of TBA practice
Fanny
Gavin
Helen

Aim at teaching / learning
linguistic forms
 Use form-focused
materials with a few tasks
 Use mainly form-focused
activities, partly tasks to
teach and assess
 Teacher dominates
classroom interaction
 Speak mainly Chinese
 Much deductive grammar
teaching

Aim at teaching / learning
linguistic forms
 Use form-focused
materials with a few tasks
 Use mainly form-focused
activities, partly tasks to
teach and assess
 Teacher dominates
classroom interaction
 Speak Chinese & English
 Some deductive grammar
teaching
 Aim
form-focused
teacher-dominated,
grammar-based
form-focused
teacher-dominated
textbook-centred
meaning-focused
student-centred
real-life-related
at teaching / learning
linguistic forms and communication
 Use form-focused materials with
many tasks
 Use mainly tasks, partly formfocused activities to teach and
assess
 Students dominate classroom
interaction
 Speak mainly English
 Much inductive grammar
teaching
Forms of TBA
Non-use of tasks
Form-focused
Teacher-centred
Uncontextualized
Case of Gavin
Case of Fanny
Weak for TBA
Medium form TBA
Case of Helen
Use of tasks
Meaning-focused
Student-centred
Contextualized
Strong form TBA
Factors
Attributes of TBA
Confusing Chinese translation
Compatibility
Relative advantages
Time-consuming design
Demand on teachers’ abilities
Macro-contextual factors
Student factors
Progressive ideas
Limited dissemination
Lack of task-based resources
No English-speaking environment
Lack of support to school projects
Preference of memorizationbased strategy
Capacity of learning English
Purpose of going abroad
Implementation of
TBA
Micro-contextual factors
No school effort to adopt TBA
Lack of support to ELT innovations
Class size
Limited periods of teaching
Teacher factors
Interpretation of ELT innovation
Limited understanding of TBA
Perceptions of students
Foci of professional development
Work experience
Time limit
Conclusion
Top
TBA
No school effort
Teacher
implementation
Down
Contributions
 Develop top-down curriculum development framework
 Enrich data of TBA learning in EFL context
 Provide insight of teacher professionalism
 Enhance understanding of curriculum innovation in PRC
School Filter
Down
Intended
curriculum
school
filter
Top
Implemented
curriculum
Policymaking
Syllabus &
material designing
school’s
decision making
Teacher’s
lesson planning
Students’
learning
Curriculum
framework
Syllabus &
materials training
curriculum
projects
teaching
acts
learning
acts
TBA in EFL Contexts
• Tends to create noise and bad discipline (Carless 2000)
• A high demand on teachers and students (Willis 1996)
• Big class sizes (Carless 2001)
• Limited time to use English in class (Ellis 2003)
• A lack of an English-speaking environment (Cheng 2004)
• Cultural appropriateness: Teacher roles (Carless 2000)
The professional development of
primary school English teachers
English proficiency
Pre-service training
In-service training
ELT abilities
Curriculum development in PRC
 The process of decentralization (Lai Auyeung 1989)
 The complexity of curriculum development
(Adamson & Davison, 2003; Osborn et al., 2000; Tong et al., 2000; Tong 2005)
 Curriculum implementation is a contextualized process (Arkoudis 2001)
 The central role of teachers in curriculum innovation
(Stenhous 1975; Fullan 2001; Kelly 2004; Osborn et. al. 2000; Tong 2005 )
 Curriculum change involved both classroom changes and
teacher professional development (Hargreaves 2001: Tong 2005)
Implications for further study
• Longitudinal studies with wider choice of samples
• Studies as the curriculum innovation moves on
• Further studies in other contexts
• Involvement of other stakeholders